Lawsuit: Dismissed Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 100

Status
Not open for further replies.

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION



Milkcrack (D.C.L.A representing)
Plaintiff

v.


DCGovernment
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I have filed, this case before the supreme court, cause I am raising a constitutional question; "Can the government decided to not uphold their part of a contract because a different administration agreed to it? Does the President, have the power to dissolve contracts, between the government and a private party?". It's my understanding that it can't and contracts between the government and private parties are legally binding and I intend to prove this fact to the court in a trial.


WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF:
I have spent almost the entirety of my career in DC, trying to do the people's work, first in Congress, then Cabinet and finally the Courts. Now, I must admit I have earned a decent salary while doing so and I have been known for investing this into my real-estate portfolio. However, somewhere at the beginning of June, I have decided to invest the money back in the people instead. I did so by, lending 80.000$ to the Federal Treasury. In exchange, the Government was obliged to exempt this money from being taxed. The agreement, I was in with the Government was a contract. With me lending out the money being the offer, and the government not taxing me over it being the consideration.

Now, the government decided to not uphold their side of the contract, by "refunding" the 80.000$ to me. However, simply "refunding" the money to me isn't enough. When I make an investment I expect a return on investment, it was my plan to request my money back when we were at a deflationary period. By simply giving back the money to me the government has caused me substantial damages.


I. PARTIES
1. Milkcrack (D.C.L.A representing)
2. DCGovernment

II. FACTS
1. I lent out, 80.000$ to the government through the Federal Treasury Program
2. The government has agreed to not tax me over the money.
3. The agreement has been accepted.
4. The Money 80.000$ was unfined to me without prior notice.
5. The Contract, has been broken by the government by "refunding" it to me.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The government has breached a contract and has caused me opportunity costs.

2. Even though my firm is representing me, I'm having to spend a large portion of my time, to get compensation and therefore I should be entitled to receive compensation for that.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. My 80.000$, returned to an account in which it won't be taxed, or another equitable compensation.
2. 2500$ in Attorney Fees given to me.
3. All the taxes I had to pay over the 80.000$ while it was in my personal balance to be paid back to me.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 9th day of September 2021
 

Westray

Senior Administrator
Senior Administrator
Former President
Mayor
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
RBA
Westray
Westray
electoralofficer
Given the Federal Court has an adequate amount of Judges, the Supreme Court has determined that this case should be moved to the Federal Court. The Supreme Court acts as primarily a place of appeal, and the Federal Court may hear constitutional matters in the first instance, as noted within the constitution.

Therefore this thread has been moved, and a Federal Court Judge will respond when possible.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
Well, the contract was made on the forums under the DEC thread. However, without any prior notice to the people who were involved in the Federal Treasury Program, the government deleted the forum node the contract was on. However there, are still a number of people, who know this contract existed and there are also numerous pieces of evidence such as an EO, Gov-announcements and more that all confirm the existence of this contract. It is my intention to show this to the court during the trial by calling reliable witnesses and presenting all the evidence I have during discovery.

I would also like to add that this is not the first time the government has maliciously or at the very least negligently sped up the regular process of deleting forum nodes, selling evicted plots, auctioning off items and etc. to prevent the successful recovery of such items/evidence through the courts. Finally, I would like to add that allowing the party that is responsible for the destruction of evidence to benefit from its destruction would be a potentially dangerous precedent to set as this would make it so that, regular citizens like me couldn't possibly bring forth a lawsuit against the government cause of its fast resources and power to make "things" disappear.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
fass.PNG

3rewsa.PNG
32.PNG
 

federal-court-png.12082

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

Milkcrack
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. This lawsuit is both frivolous and inaccurate, so it should thus be dismissed.
2. First off, the plaintiff is suing because he failed to turn a profit on his investment. No investment guarantees profit, and it is inaccurate to say that any contract promised the plaintiff a profit. Furthermore, the Federal Treasury program was essentially a government-run checking/savings account; it is common financial sense that you can't expect to turn a profit from that kind of account. It is frivolous for the plaintiff to sue when he inevitably failed to profit from a checking account.
3. Under The Foundation of Contract Law section 10, contracts must be made with the intention that a normal person consider all the circumstances. Neither party considered all the possibilities that a normal person would have. The contract laws states that the party denying has the burden of proof so I submit the following to be considered
Neither party, The State nor the plaintiff, considered all the options.
No official, signed contract was made and has been filed on record with neither the State or the Plaintiff
The State and the Plaintiff both agreed that the State could deny a withdrawal if the government could not afford to pay it back. The opposite was never considered, and to a normal person, should have been considered. The contract was not fully considered by both parties; both parties were not intent on creating a legally binding agreement

4. The plaintiff has accused the State of trying to destroy evidence of any contract. This is a lie. The government, no matter the position, does not have the authority to delete forum nodes. This is at the discretion of owners. The owners deleted the forum nodes, and once deleted, cannot be recovered. The government had no authority of this staff decision
5. The previous administration did not sign a formal contract with the Mr. Milkcrack. Both parties must agree to a contact, and if the government signed no contract with Mr. Milkcrack, the agreement is not legally binding, and the State didn’t break contract because no contract existed.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 11th day of September 2021
 
If the plaintiff would like to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, I will grant them 48 hours to pen a response. Otherwise, I will make a decision on the motion to dismiss.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
Response to the Motion to dismiss


Thank you, your Honor, for allowing me to respond properly. Although I don't find it surprising the defence disagrees with the complaint, the allegation that the complaint is frivolous or inaccurate however is completely unfounded and on top of that the motion to dismiss only, servers as a way of not having to answer the complaint properly. I can assure you your honor I have no, interest in this lawsuit besides the prayer for relief.

As for the allegations, there was no intent to create a legally binding contract; the law is clear that the party denying the intention of the contract being legally binding, has the burden of proof to prove that it isn’t. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented previously clearly shows the government using wording like “lend, “borrowed”, “officially” and “debt”. I think you must agree that a “normal person” would think that if you officially lend money to the government, that supersedes the term “understanding” and should be considered a legally binding agreement. As for the deletion of the forum node; I find it very hard to believe, the staff decided to randomly, delete the forum node without being asked to do so.

Finally, although I do realize you have a large amount of discretion regarding the procedure of this trial, I would like to ask you, your honor, to deny the motion to dismiss on the ground that it clearly raises, issues far outside of the scope of a motion to dismiss and it “comes with new fact” which is forbidden in the court rules & procedures guide.
 
Verdict on the Motion to Dismiss:

I will be Denying the Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds:

1. The Court believes that there is a contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant because all of the elements laid out in Section 4.4 of The Contract Law Foundation Act are met.
2. While this court does not see any explicit agreement on whether or not interest is to be provided, the plaintiff and the defendant may argue before this court as to whether or not interest was expected by lending money to the Federal Treasury.
3. The Court is disturbed by one side suddenly rescinding on the contract unilaterally.
4. The Valid Offer that was made by the Federal Treasury was that any money placed inside it was "tax-free". By suddenly rescinding the contract unilaterally and placing the money back in the plaintiff's account, did the defendant break its own contract and cause monetary damages to the plaintiff via the Wealth-tax?

The defandant may now provide opening statements. Please have them submitted within the next 72 hours.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
OPENING STATEMENT

The plaintiff is seeking vague and large prayers for relief for the alleged breaking of a contract that doesn’t really exist.

Section 10 of the Foundation of Contract Law Act says that a contract only exists if there was an intention to create legal relations. Neither Milkcrack nor the government signed any documents nor consulted lawyers when the Federal Treasury program was initiated. Thus, there was no intention for legal relations to be established and so there is no contract.

Subsection 3 of Section 10 says that it can be presumed there was no intention for legal relations if there is a lack of formality and vagueness of terms. There was certainly a lack of formality since no documents were signed or lawyers were involved. The terms are clearly vague, with no description of how long the tax-free period would last, whether or not the lenders were entitled to make any sort of profit, what the government could do with money loaned to it, whether or not there were rules to ensure the money was not spent wastefully, and whether or not the lenders were entitled to any protection if their money was lost. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this was an informal arrangement, with no legal relations.

Furthermore, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can produce any record of an official contract. The allegation by the plaintiff that the record of an official contract was deleted by the government is utterly false, since only staff has that ability.

With no contract existing, it is impossible to say that the plaintiff is entitled to prayers for relief, especially prayers as vague as “all the taxes I had to pay”
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
OPENING STATEMENT


The facts, of this case, are clear; A contract has been made, and a contract has been broken. I believe the judge already agreed in the verdict on the motion to dismiss that, a contract has been made. So I will answer the question he poses in the verdict. Was there any interest expected, by lending money to the government and did the government cause monetary damages to me, via the wealth tax?

I say yes. A clear term of the agreement was, that the money lend out would be exempt, from taxation. This term has been broken and as a direct result, I now have to pay taxes over said money. This is clearly, a form of monetary damages caused by the government by not upholding their part of the contract. Whether, or not interest was expected from lending out money to the government; should also be a clear, yes. The interest was the wealth tax. In support there of I would like to, enter this discord message into evidence, from the current, DEC-Secretary and President who introduced the federal treasury program.
(message ID 849376349999071252) Time - 01/06/2021, 21:58:22.
Link: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities


These messages were posted around 21:58CEST on June the first in #global-chat. This was just a few days before I entered into the contract with the government and is one of the reasons I did.


asasads.PNG
 
Last edited:
While I appreciate the plaintiff's extrapolation of comments made by Hugebob, it's clear to me that the offer made by the Treasury did not offer interest. With Hugebob commenting as a joke that "Interest is equal to the tax rate" as a way of conveying that while there was no interest, the money would be kept tax-free.

Subsection 3 of Section 10 says that it can be presumed there was no intention for legal relations if there is a lack of formality and vagueness of terms. There was certainly a lack of formality since no documents were signed or lawyers were involved. The terms are clearly vague, with no description of how long the tax-free period would last, whether or not the lenders were entitled to make any sort of profit, what the government could do with money loaned to it, whether or not there were rules to ensure the money was not spent wastefully, and whether or not the lenders were entitled to any protection if their money was lost. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this was an informal arrangement, with no legal relations.

I will ask the defendant six questions in regards to Section 4.4 and Section 10.3 of The Contract Law Foundation Act.

1. How is there not a clear Offer made by the government?
2. How does Consideration on the behalf of the Plaintiff and the Government is not met?
3. Is there any Capacity issues for either the Plaintiff or the Government?
4. How are the terms vague when they were clearly stated within the 4th piece of evidence?
5. How is there a lack of formality given that the government held the Plaintiff's money for a month as per the Offer made by the Government?
6. Is a lawyer really needed to enter into a contract?

As per Section 10.2 of The Contract Law Foundation Act, the onus of the claims of a lack of contract is on the party seeking to absolve itself of the contact. Please answer these questions accordingly within the next 72 hours. After you make your post, the plaintiff will be afforded 72 hours to make a response.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor,

I would like to ask for a 24 hour extension past the deadline due to irl issues that have arose
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor,

I deeply apologize but I will be in the field until Thursday evening and worn have access to my phone. I would like to ask the court to be put in recess until then.
 
I will grant this request but this will be the last extension given. Please request help from the Attorney General if you are unable to work on this case due to real-life obligations.
 
The time extension has since passed. We will now be moving on with the case with the understanding that this case is over an established contract. I will be estopping any attempt to otherwise not call this a contract.

Would the plaintiff and defendant like to bring any witnesses to this court?
 
Last edited:

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
No, your honor seeing as the contract has been established, and as to not prolongate the trial I will not be calling any witnesses.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor,

Currently we are working out a deal out of court. I would ask that we pause so we can see the process through.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
The government will not be calling any witnesses your honor.
 
With no witnesses called we shall move to closing statements. The plaintiff will have 72 hours to respond. After the plaintiff has posted their closing statements, the defendant will have 72 hours to post theirs as well.
 

SumoMC

Citizen
Justice Department
Donator
RBA
xSumoMC
xSumoMC
traineeofficer
Your Honor,

A settlement has been agreed upon by the Plaintiff and The Government.

The government will pay the plaintiff $44,970
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top